Subject: Bash IETF, not RIRs

From: masataka ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:29:46 +0900

Dear all;

When IETF produces a broken protocol, don't bash RIRs that
they don't set good policy to operate the protocol. They
can't.

Current IPv6, with no insight on routing table scalability
problem, is broken.

IETF and its IPv6 WG, if any, should be bashed, as the problem
was known to exist even before the WG was created.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:23:09 +0200

On maandag, okt 13, 2003, at 11:29 Europe/Amsterdam, masataka ohta 

> they don't set good policy to operate the protocol. They

Disagree. A good policy would be making the best of the situation we're 
in today. The current RIR IPv6 allocation policy doesn't do that as it 
allows for a routing table of 520 million /32 entries, which is more 
than what we can realistically expect routers to handle in the future.

> was known to exist even before the WG was created.

At least we're trying to fix one part of the problem in this working 
group...

Back to your idea of having a full routing table in each host. We've 
talked about this and things haven't changed in the mean time. Without 
aggregation, this makes sense, as a host then knows what's reachable 
and what isn't, and maybe even gets to determine which path to a 
certain destination is shorter. But all this very useful information is 
hidden behind aggregation. For instance, if you want to determine 
whether you want to reach me through my 3ffe:2500:310::/48 or my 
2001:888:1dde::/48 prefix, you're not going to be able to see whether 
those are reachable, as the /48s aren't going to be in the global 
routing table, just 3ffe:2500::/32 and 2001:888::/32.

---

From: "marcelo bagnulo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:43:31 +0200

Hi Iljitsch,

> than what we can realistically expect routers to handle in the future.

I don't understand what you are suggesting, could you be more explicit about
what do you consider that the IPv6 allocation policy should be?

(Sorry if this is OT, perhaps we could move the thread to globalv6, chairs?)

The way that i can think of how to reduce this, would be not to assign a PA
block to all isps, and impose them to obtain a block from a bigger ISP, is
that what you are suggesting?
If this is so, i am not sure how isp multi-homing would work for instance...
The lower isps that are multi-homed would have multiple prefixes, one per
provider, as it is proposed for sites today?

Thanks, marcelo

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:04:03 +0200

> (Sorry if this is OT, perhaps we could move the thread to globalv6, 

<as chair>

Well, the discussion that the RIRs have come up with a faulty policy 
should. As Ray pointed out, the RIRs crates no policy. It's created on 
globalv6 and should go there. Mostly as feedback to the people 
discussing the policy. As for the routing table size discussion, I 
think that is ok.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:19:12 +0300 (EEST)

> discussing the policy. As for the routing table size discussion, I 

Well, as a matter of fact, many RIRs *do* create their own ad-hoc
additional policies (e.g., special PI allocations to "critical
infrastructure"), with little regard to globalv6, so this view is not
entirely accurate.

For "high-level" policy discussions, globalv6 is probably the best place 
to have them.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:36:45 +0200

> For "high-level" policy discussions, globalv6 is probably the best 

Even those policies are not created by the RIRs. By the RIR community 
perhaps, but not by RIRs.

- - kurtis -